Mobile County's dangerous dog law ruled unconstitutional

MOBILE, Ala. -- A law designed to protect residents of rural Mobile County against dangerous dogs was ruled unconstitutional earlier this week in Mobile County District Court.

The Tuesday ruling in District Judge George Hardesty’s courtroom resulted in two dogs being returned to a Semmes man after they were quarantined in March following an attack on his neighbor’s 3-year-old daughter.

Brian Overstreet, attorney for the dogs’ owner, James White, said the ruling came during a civil hearing to have the dogs declared dangerous so they could be euthanized.

He said the law’s constitutionality was challenged on several points, including that it does not cover all parts of the county in the same manner.

Overstreet said Hardesty did not state exactly what prompted him to strike the law down.

The ruling drew concern from Joshua Shelton, a neighbor of White’s on Stone Road. Shelton said his daughter, Madison, was hospitalized March 10 after being attacked in her front yard by White’s two dogs, Sailor and Captain, and an Australian cattle dog, commonly called a blue heeler.

White told the court that he did not own the blue heeler, which was also quarantined but not released from the Mobile County Animal Shelter after the ruling, according to Assistant District Attorney John Piazza.

White was told by Hardesty to keep the released dogs secured or face a contempt citation, Piazza said.

Shelton said he and a number of neighbors have expressed fears about the dogs.

“The deputies took about 20 statements from neighbors complaining about these dogs,” he said.

Shelton said a civil suit against White, seeking damages for his daughter’s injuries, is pending.

Attempts to reach White were unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, both Overstreet and District Attorney John Tyson said it will be up to State Rep. Chad Fincher, R-Semmes, who sponsored the overturned law, to introduce a new version that will stand up to legal challenge.

Fincher said he will reintroduce the law in the next legislative session. “One of my first priorities is to have the act amended with the language changed.”

He said a probable sticking point with the law was that the constitutional amendment approved by voters to enact the law mentioned the unincorporated areas of Mobile County, while the act itself only mentioned Mobile County.

“The legal interpretation was different; the language did not match exactly,” Fincher said.

Overstreet called Fincher’s law a “noble endeavor. He will probably prevail in getting an act passed with the necessary changes made.” 